`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`* Case No.: 21-2773
`
` *
` *
` *
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`*
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`
`WILLIAM V. TRAN
`
`
`11831 Tulip Stern Drive
`
`
`Clarksburg, MD 20871
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary
`
`U.S. Department of
`
`
`Health and Human Services
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serve:
`
`
`
`
`Christina Patton Black, Esq.
`
`General Law Division
`
`
`Office of General Counsel
`
`
`Department of Health & Human Services
`330 C Street SW, Suite 2600
`
`Washington, D.C. 20201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff, William Tran (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Mr. Tran”), by and
`
`
`
`through his undersigned counsel Dionna Maria Lewis, Esq. complains against Defendant, United
`
`States Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter “Defendant” or “HHS”) and in
`
`support thereof states as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1981(a) (“Section
`
`1981”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6, et seq. for the Defendant’s unlawful harassment and discrimination
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`based on national origin (Vietnamese), non-selection based on race, and retaliation against the
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2. This Honorable Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331as it asserts a claim that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,
`
`specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq.,
`
`and Section 1981, to redress and enjoin employment practices of the Defendant.
`
`3. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
`
`4. Additionally, venue for this action is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Defendant
`
`is headquartered within the District of Columbia and is thus deemed to reside within this
`
`judicial district, and subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this civil action.
`
`Accordingly, venue is proper in this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
`
`EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
`
`5. Plaintiff has exhausted all of his administrative remedies.
`
`6. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Baltimore Field Office of the U.S. Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on or about June 3, 2016, alleging national origin
`
`(Vietnamese) discrimination, non-selection based on race, and retaliation.
`
`7. On July 26, 2021 after Plaintiff’s request, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Right-to-Sue Letter,
`
`which Plaintiff received on July 27, 2021.
`
`8. Accordingly, Plaintiff timely files this action in accordance with the Notice of Right to Appeal,
`
`which provided Plaintiff the right to file this Complaint within 90 days of receipt of the Notice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`9. Plaintiff brings this action to secure protection of rights granted under the statute mentioned
`
`above, to redress deprivation of rights thereunder, and to obtain such other relief as is necessary
`
`to redress the injury to Plaintiff resulting from Defendant's violation of those statutes.
`
`10. Plaintiff’s damages are significant, including, but not limited to, the loss of reputation, career
`
`advantage, a violation of privacy, emotional tranquility, and denial of his constitutional and
`
`statutory rights.
`
`11. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive
`
`damages, both to secure future protection and to redress the past deprivation of rights
`
`guaranteed to named Plaintiff.
`
`PARTIES
`
`12. Plaintiff, William Tran is a Vietnamese-Asian male who resides in Clarksburg, Maryland,
`
`where he currently works for the National Institute of Health (“NIH”).
`
`13. Defendant is a governmental agency, which is headquartered in the District of Columbia.
`
`14. Plaintiff was employed as a Mechanical Engineer for the NIH for over ten (10) years and
`
`primarily worked at the NIH building in Bethesda, Maryland.
`
`15. During the relevant period, Defendant employed Plaintiff, William Tran.
`
`16. During the relevant period, Plaintiff was Defendant’s employee within the meaning, and
`
`entitled to the protections of Title VII and Section 1981.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`17. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant discriminated against him based on national origin
`
`(Vietnam) and engaged in non-selection for various employment positions because of his race.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`18. Plaintiff is a 51-years-old native of Vietnam but has been employed by the federal government
`
`for over ten (10) years. Prior to working for the National Institute of Health, Plaintiff worked
`
`for the Department of Defense for approximately one and a half years. Prior to his EEO
`
`grievances, Plaintiff consistently received “exceptional” annual performance ratings, both at
`
`the Department of Defense and National Institute of Health. However, after he began to engage
`
`in protected activity, that all changed.
`
`19. Plaintiff has a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and has held a HVAC
`
`Contracting License since early 1993. Plaintiff has also owned and operated a HVAC
`
`consulting business.
`
`20. Despite Plaintiff’s qualifications, Plaintiff has repeatedly been denied career opportunities at
`
`NIH in favor of less-qualified individuals who were affiliated with or identified as, the national
`
`origin of senior management, who were typically the selecting officials. Even in the face of
`
`obvious disparate treatment, Plaintiff actively attempted to reach out to Defendant’s senior
`
`leadership to seek career advancement opportunities and trainings, to no avail.
`
`21. After Plaintiff’s attempts to advance in his career, Defendant’s management instructed Plaintiff
`
`to perform unskilled labor task-inventory. Plaintiff was the only employee who held the status
`
`of engineer in Defendant’s organization, yet he was directed to perform duties outside of his
`
`job description, which were typically reserved for less qualified individuals who would
`
`ordinarily perform unskilled tasks.
`
`22. Additionally, Plaintiff was tasked with supervising a difficult employee even though this was
`
`outside of his job duties and was seemingly aimed at making Plaintiff’s work life more
`
`difficult. Based on reason and belief, this was done in an effort to retaliate against him and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`create a hostile working environment for him. As a result, Plaintiff began to document the
`
`numerous instances of discrimination he faced.
`
`23. On or about April 22, 2015, Mr. Guan sent Plaintiff an email stating that he would be
`
`responsible for supervising and training an employee, Mr. Victor Camello. However, Mr.
`
`Tran’s job responsibilities did not include supervisory duties and his job description or
`
`compensation was never updated to reflect this change or these expanded duties.
`
`24. Between April 22, 2015 and June 10, 2015, Plaintiff wrote numerous emails to Mr. Guan and
`
`Mr. Joe Nieves in regard to Mr. Camello’s hostile behavior towards him. Mr. Camello had
`
`displayed violent bursts of anger towards Plaintiff and other coworkers and Plaintiff was
`
`concerned for his and others’ safety in the workplace. Management did not take any action to
`
`address Plaintiff’s concerns despite the genuine fear that Plaintiff conveyed.
`
`25. On or about February 6, 2015, Plaintiff was constructively demoted when his job duties were
`
`changed from a practicing engineer to those of an unskilled laborer when he was assigned to
`
`an “Inventory Administrator” position, and given the task of organizing the inventory cage.
`
`Once again, there was no change in Plaintiff’s position classification as required by the Office
`
`of Personnel Management (OPM) nor was a new SF-50 issued to reflect the new job
`
`responsibilities.
`
`26. When questioned during the EEOC investigation as to who was responsible for deciding
`
`Plaintiff’s new job responsibilities, Mr. Nieves stated that Plaintiff’s reassignment was made
`
`by Ms. Alamelu Ramesh. However, Ms. Ramesh stated that while she was aware of the
`
`changes in Plaintiff’s responsibilities, she was not involved. Defendant’s EEOC interrogatory
`
`answers stated the new job responsibilities were “part of his existing position as a General
`
`Engineer,” however, Plaintiff was actually the only engineer required to perform these tasks.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`27. Plaintiff made clear to management that the inventory tasks did not utilize his professional
`
`skills and from February 12, 2015 to April 19, 2016, he inquired for other opportunities that
`
`were affiliated with his skills and experience. Being singled out, Plaintiff was the only
`
`engineer being required to work inventory tasks and management took no action to rectify the
`
`situation. Based on reason and belief, senior management continued to show preference for
`
`individuals who matched or closely matched their own national origin over Plaintiff, who did
`
`not.
`
`28. In or around December 2015, Plaintiff learned that a position he had previously expressed
`
`interest in had been cancelled but was later filled by a less qualified individual outside of his
`
`race and national origin. The Maintenance Supervisor position was never competitively
`
`announced and was filled by NIH outsider-Mr. Dax Sadler.
`
`29. On or about February 19, 2016, Mr. Alex Huang, Plaintiff’s coworker, stated during a morning
`
`meeting that he was referred to a Mechanical Engineer position in Durham, North Carolina.
`
`The position had been posted on or around early February 2016 and interviews had not yet
`
`been conducted with other potential candidates. Despite this, Mr. Huang made it clear that
`
`management was planning to bring him on board and to send him to Durham, North Carolina
`
`for a few weeks, before ultimately bringing him back to Bethesda, Maryland.
`
`30. Alex Huang and Mr. Kayvan was initially brought on board through an employment recruiting
`
`services (Ravens) to be under the same supervision as Plaintiff with Mr. Don Guan. Mr. Don
`
`Guan and Alex Huang are from the same native country.
`
`31. On or about February 25, 2016, Plaintiff went out to lunch with Mr. Huang and another
`
`coworker. At this lunch, Mr. Huang stated that management would hire Mr. Huang in a way
`
`that would look “legitimate.” Mr. Huang told Plaintiff that this meant his temporary stay in
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`Durham would be one month or up to three months and that “it’s all timing” on how the second
`
`position would be put out to support Mr. Huang’s temporary stay in Durham, or words similar.
`
`32. On or about March 8, 2016, Mr. Huang reiterated to Plaintiff and another coworker that
`
`interviews for the position were now taking place, but that management would ultimately hire
`
`Mr. Huang in the end. Then, on or about March 20, 2016, Mr. Huang informed his coworkers
`
`that he was scheduled for a phone interview for the position. In response, Plaintiff questioned
`
`Mr. Huang as to what would happen to one of their other coworkers, Mr. Kayvan. Mr. Huang
`
`responded that management would try to hire Mr. Kayvan through another avenue, but that it
`
`would be difficult because Mr. Kayvan did not have an engineering degree.
`
`33. On or about March, 27, 2016, Mr. Huang informed Plaintiff and a coworker that he had
`
`received an official hiring call from Human Resources to extend a job offer for the position in
`
`Durham, NC. On or about April 12, 2016, Mr. Huang informed Plaintiff and another coworker
`
`that his starting date for his new position would be May 2, 2016. Mr. Huang also informed
`
`Plaintiff that he and his wife had recently put in a bid for a new home in Bethesda after he
`
`received a tentative offer in Durham, and that they would be moving on or about May 13, 2016.
`
`34. On or about April 27, 2016, Mr. Huang indicated to Plaintiff that management agreed to detail
`
`him back to the NIH main campus in Bethesda after a few weeks stay in Durham. Mr. Huang
`
`informed Plaintiff that he would be renting an extended stay hotel room while in Durham for
`
`orientation, or words similar.
`
`35. As these events were occurring, Plaintiff found it odd that Mr. Huang had advance notice that
`
`he would receive the job offer in March 2016, and place a bid on a new home in Bethesda in
`
`April 2016. The job posting was clearly for Durham, North Carolina and Plaintiff found it
`
`suspicious that Mr. Huang would be “working” in Durham, NC, but living in Bethesda, MD.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`36. Throughout the course of these events, Plaintiff wrote five (5) emails between February 12,
`
`2016 and April 19, 2016 to management members, Ms. Ramesh, Mr. Guan, Mr. Nieves, Mr.
`
`Mayberry, and Mr. Vergara. Plaintiff pleaded for other career opportunities after he was
`
`assigned job responsibilities from Mechanical Engineer to unskilled labor tasks, such as
`
`inventory which was an affront to his background and experience.
`
`37. Plaintiff realized that management was orchestrating hiring opportunities for less-qualified
`
`individuals such as Mr. Huang and Mr. Kayvan, but never responded to any of Plaintiff’s
`
`emails for similar opportunities. It became clear that preference was being given to individuals
`
`who closely matched the national origins of senior management, which Plaintiff did not.
`
`38. Plaintiff was also denied the ability to telework by Mr. Don Guan when it was offered to other
`
`employees. During the EEOC investigation, management denied this, but Plaintiff’s coworker,
`
`Mr. Amir Abdelsalam attested to the fact that Plaintiff had inquired for the ability to telework
`
`but was denied the opportunity.
`
`39. Further, Plaintiff was denied training opportunities that were made available to other
`
`employees outside of his race and national origin. Central Utility Plant (CUP) management
`
`had scheduled numerous on and off-site trainings for engineers in an effort to enhance
`
`employee professional careers. Engineers would have a chance to travel offsite, attend
`
`conferences, and train in-house with new equipment. Despite Plaintiff’s ten-year career at
`
`NIH, Plaintiff was never invited to these trainings. Once again, Plaintiff noticed that
`
`individuals of similar nationalities as senior management received these opportunities instead.
`
`40. On or about April 19, 2016, Plaintiff was not considered to serve as Acting Chief. During the
`
`EEOC investigation, Defendant’s management was questioned about its reasoning for this.
`
`Both Ms. Ramesh and Mr. Farhad Memarzadeh stated that a GS-13 grade employee would not
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`be the Acting Branch Chief because a GS-13 could not manage a GS-14. This would have
`
`been sound reasoning had Plaintiff not been aware that Mr. Guan had been made Acting Utility
`
`Engineer Branch Chief when he was a GS-13 on or about October 24, 2014. Shortly
`
`afterwards, Mr. Guan officially became a Branch Chief, but management did not want to award
`
`Plaintiff the same opportunity as a result of his race and national origin.
`
`41. On or about, April 26, 2016, Plaintiff was also not considered to serve as the Maximo
`
`Administrator. Since October 2014, Plaintiff had been involved with Maximo Software when
`
`the Division of Technical Resource went through reorganization. Further, on or about
`
`February 6, 2015, Mr. Guan had sent an email to Mr. Leo Gumapas asking him to invite
`
`Plaintiff to all future Maximo meetings. Ultimately, Mr. Andy Vergara sent an official email
`
`to announce Mr. Eric Wisehart as the new Maximo Administrator.
`
`42. Based on information and belief, Mr. Wisehart has a criminal history who had initially been
`
`hired as a “High Voltage Shop Leader.” Mr. Wisehart finished a six-year prison term on
`
`September 2015 for crimes of dishonesty including “racketeering and theft charges,” but was
`
`still hired as a GS-13 employee without a college degree, because of his race and national
`
`origin, which was preferred in the department.
`
`43. Defendant’s management claimed that no one was aware of Mr. Wisehart’s felony conviction,
`
`but that Mr. Wisehart did not hide his record from the agency. Plaintiff found it suspicious
`
`that Human Resource Personnel did not know Mr. Wisehart had a felony conviction, unless
`
`Mr. Wisehart had lied on his application.
`
`44. During one of the morning coffee breaks, Plaintiff had with his coworkers, Plaintiff engaged
`
`in what became a heated argument with Mr. Huang regarding the competency of Senior
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`Management. Mr. Huang disagreed with Plaintiff’s comments that taxpayer money was being
`
`wasted.
`
`45. On or about May 3, 2016, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Ms. Alamelu Ramesh,
`
`Deputy Director, and Mr. Dan Moses, Branch Chief. Plaintiff was informed that his inventory
`
`work duties were being removed and that there was no need for him at the CUP plant anymore.
`
`Plaintiff inquired as to why newly hired mechanical engineers with no experience were not
`
`being detailed to other areas and Ms. Ramesh responded that if Plaintiff was unhappy, he
`
`“should look for another job,” or words similar. Plaintiff believes that this action and these
`
`comments by Ms. Ramesh were in retaliation for his comments about Senior Management
`
`during his heated conversation with Mr. Huang.
`
`46. At a later instance, Mr. Huang suggested to Plaintiff’s coworker, Mr. Abdelsalam, that
`
`Plaintiff’s reassignment to inventory was due to Senior Management’s dissatisfaction with
`
`Plaintiff. Mr. Abdelsalam then relayed this to Plaintiff.
`
`47. Further, on or about April 11, 2016, chain emails between Ms. Ramesh, Mr. Nieves, Mr. Bill
`
`Topper and Plaintiff were sent to request an inventory “Labor Contract” extension. Ms.
`
`Medlin, Contracting Officer, confirmed the extension. However, three weeks later, Plaintiff
`
`was informed that the inventory task was coming to a close. The fact that the contract had
`
`been extended and three weeks later, after a heated argument about senior management,
`
`Plaintiff was informed he was being reassigned made Plaintiff realize that his reassignment
`
`was retaliatory in nature.
`
`48. On or about June 7, 2016, Plaintiff learned that he was denied a cash or time off bonus award
`
`while some of his colleagues with lower annual performance ratings received awards. This was
`
`the second time this had occurred to Plaintiff. The previous occurrence was in 2011 when one
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`of Plaintiff’s colleagues had received a Quality Step Increase and higher Cash Award with a
`
`rating of approximately around 4-4.5. Plaintiff received an “exceptional” rating of 5 that same
`
`year and did not receive a Quality Step Increase.
`
`49. On or about August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed an incident case report with Officer Tart Dickerson
`
`at NIH Police Department. On or about August 30, 2016, NIH Detective David Warren
`
`reached out to Plaintiff by phone and told him that he would not get involved with his case
`
`because Plaintiff was in the middle of EEO complaints. Plaintiff pleaded with Detective
`
`Warren to conduct the investigation because the EEO complaints would take some time and
`
`Plaintiff was worried for his safety. Plaintiff never received a police incident report or a case
`
`number and never signed any document or had the opportunity to present his case to Detective
`
`Warren. However, Plaintiff later found out that an unsigned police incident report was
`
`provided to the EEO office and NIH HR during the EEOC investigation without his knowledge
`
`even though he had not been able to obtain the same, despite his requests.
`
`50. On or around November 2016, Plaintiff was not selected for a Supervisory Engineer position.
`
`Defendant’s management claimed that Plaintiff was not selected because he lacked a FAC-
`
`PPM certification and the candidate needed to have knowledge of the CUP. However,
`
`management controls who receives a FAC-PPM certification and Plaintiff had direct
`
`professional certifications with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, an HVAC license, project
`
`management, previously owned and operated a HVAC consultant business, and had worked
`
`directly with utility facilities. By contrast, Mr. Marty Haghjou, who was selected, was a civil
`
`engineer who worked with bridges and roads and not utility facilities. Based on reason and
`
`belief, the hiring manager who hired Mr. Marty Haghjou for the Supervisory Engineer position
`
`was also from the same native country.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`51. Plaintiff later learned that once again, the final individuals considered to this position were of
`
`similar race and national origin as the interview panel, while Plaintiff was not.
`
`52. The interview panel for the Branch Chief position included Mr. Guan (mechanical engineer),
`
`Mr. Steve Breslin (architect), and Mr. Gregory Gendron (journalist). At least two out of three
`
`of the interviewers did not have project management skills or direct field experience in a utility
`
`plant. Additionally, one out of the three individuals were a part of Plaintiff’s EEO ongoing
`
`EEO case and Plaintiff felt that they were deliberately giving him lower interview scores in
`
`retaliation for his EEO case.
`
`53. Finally, in or about 2018, Plaintiff learned that Mr. Haghjou had been moved to a different
`
`position and that his replacement, Mr. Abdul Bhuiyan, is an electrical engineer who had never
`
`been a project manager and has never held any project management certification. As such, the
`
`Supervisory Engineer position that Plaintiff was not selected for, allegedly because he did not
`
`have project management skills or knowledge of the CUP, is now occupied by an individual
`
`who does not have project management skills or knowledge of the CUP but is of a different
`
`race and national origin than Plaintiff.
`
`54. Based on reason and belief, Plaintiff was discriminated against when he was continuously
`
`passed over for promotions, demoted, and replaced by an ex-convict despite the fact he had
`
`consistent excellent annual performance ratings and was well qualified for the positions.
`
`55. As a result of this harassment and discrimination, Plaintiff has been gravely impacted with
`
`regards to his employment and emotional distress.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`COUNT I
`
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIINATION
`
`56. Plaintiff incorporates all information and allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`57. A prima facie case of national origin discrimination requires a showing of four (4) elements: (1) he is
`
`a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse
`
`employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
`
`discrimination.
`
`58. Here, the four (4) elements of a prima facie case of national origin discrimination are met. The Plaintiff
`
`is a Vietnamese Asian male, and is considered a member of a protected class as stipulated under Title
`
`VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, Plaintiff is a qualified engineer, as he has
`
`approximately ten years of relevant experience, without record of performance issues or misconduct.
`
`The Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action directly related to his position of being a protected
`
`class member as recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
`
`59. As a Vietnamese-Asian, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class.
`
`60. Because of his national origin (Vietnam), Plaintiff was subjected to the unlawful conduct and
`
`adverse actions alleged throughout this Complaint under Title VII.
`
`61. Defendant's foregoing unlawful adverse actions materially affected the terms, privileges, and
`
`conditions of Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant that was made when Defendant hired
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`62. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was a Vietnamese-Asian male prior to the adverse actions
`
`described throughout the Complaint and was aware or should have been aware of the
`
`discrimination Plaintiff was subjected to because of his national origin.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`63. Plaintiff has been treated differently and subjected to different terms and conditions of his
`
`employment contract with Defendant due to his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`64. Defendant has limited, segregated, and classified Plaintiff in a way that deprived him of
`
`privacy and enjoyment of employment opportunities, because of his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`65. Other employees who were similarly situated, but members of a different class than Plaintiff,
`
`have been treated more favorably than the Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of their
`
`employment.
`
`66. Plaintiff's national origin was a determining factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct toward
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`67. The reasons proffered by Defendant for its unlawful conduct are pretextual and Defendant
`
`cannot further offer any legitimate reason for its unlawful conduct.
`
`68. Defendant's aforementioned conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,
`
`reckless and in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff because of his national origin
`
`(Vietnam).
`
`COUNT II
`
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – RACE DISCRIINATION
`
`69. Plaintiff incorporates all information and allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`70. A prima facie case of race discrimination requires a showing of four (4) elements: (1) he is a member
`
`of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action;
`
`and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
`
`71. Here, the four (4) elements of a prima facie case of race discrimination are met. The Plaintiff is a
`
`Vietnamese Asian male, and is considered a member of a protected class as stipulated under Title VII
`
`of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, Plaintiff is a qualified engineer, as he has approximately
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`ten years of relevant experience, without record of performance issues or misconduct. The Plaintiff
`
`suffered an adverse employment action directly related to his position of being a protected class
`
`member as recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
`
`72. As a Vietnamese-Asian, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class.
`
`73. Because of his race (Asian/Vietnamese), Plaintiff was subjected to the unlawful conduct and
`
`adverse actions alleged throughout this Complaint under Title VII.
`
`74. Defendant's foregoing unlawful adverse actions materially affected the terms, privileges, and
`
`conditions of Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant that was made when Defendant hired
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`75. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was a Vietnamese-Asian male prior to the adverse actions
`
`described throughout the Complaint and was aware or should have been aware of the
`
`discrimination Plaintiff was subjected to because of his national origin.
`
`76. Plaintiff has been treated differently and subjected to different terms and conditions of his
`
`employment contract with Defendant due to his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`77. Defendant has limited, segregated, and classified Plaintiff in a way that deprived him of
`
`privacy and enjoyment of employment opportunities, because of his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`78. Other employees who were similarly situated, but members of a different class than Plaintiff,
`
`have been treated more favorably than the Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of their
`
`employment.
`
`79. Plaintiff's national origin was a determining factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct toward
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`80. The reasons proffered by Defendant for its unlawful conduct are pretextual and Defendant
`
`cannot further offer any legitimate reason for its unlawful conduct.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`81. Defendant's aforementioned conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,
`
`reckless and in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff because of his national origin
`
`(Vietnam).
`
`COUNT III
`
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – RETALIATION
`82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the paragraphs
`
`above, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`83. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against any
`
`individual with respect to [his] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
`
`because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–
`
`2(a)(1), and from retaliating against employees for engaging in activity protected by Title VII,
`
`id. § 2000e–3(a). To that end, an employer may not create or condone a hostile or abusive work
`
`environment that is discriminatory. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64–65
`
`(1986).
`
`84. Here, the Plaintiff faced retaliation for his prior EEO activity.
`
`85. Soon after contacting an EEO counselor, Plaintiff was subjected to the unlawful conduct and
`
`adverse actions alleged throughout this Complaint in violation of Title VII.
`
`86. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to the aforementioned adverse employment actions because of
`
`his opposition to the unlawful and discriminatory employment practices of Defendant and its
`
`agents in violation of Title VII.
`
`87. Defendant, including Plaintiff's supervisors, knew of Plaintiff’s engagement in protected
`
`activity prior to engaging in the aforementioned adverse actions when they were informed by
`
`Plaintiff directly, advised by an EEOC representative, or otherwise should have known that
`
`Plaintiff engaged in the complaint process based on his informal and formal complaint filings.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 17 of 20
`
`88. The adverse retaliatory actions to which Plaintiff has been subjected to are a direct result of
`
`Plaintiff having previously engaged in statutorily-protected activity.
`
`89. Plaintiff’s prior protected activity was a determining factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct
`
`toward Plaintiff.
`
`90. Plaintiff's prior protected activity was a motivating factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct
`
`toward Plaintiff.
`
`91. Similarly situated employees (no known prior EEOC activity) were not subjected to the same,
`
`similar, or any adverse treatment.
`
`92. Defendant's unlawful conduct has created a climate of fear and isolation for Plaintiff and other
`
`employees, which creates a chilling effect in violation of Title VII.
`
`93. The reasons proffered by Defendant for its unlawful conduct are pretextual and Defendant
`
`cannot further offer any legitimate reason for its unlawful conduct.
`
`94. Defendant's unlawful conduct negatively impacted the terms, conditions, and privileges of
`
`Plaintiff's employment.
`
`95. Defendant's retaliatory conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckless
`
`and in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff because of his participation and opposition to
`
`Defendant's discriminatory conduct.
`
`96. Defendant is directly liable for the discriminatory acts or omissions of its agents, servants and
`
`employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment, under the theory of
`
`Respondeat Superior.
`
`97. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct alle